The legitimate men's/fathers’ movement grew from early efforts at divorce reform.
Its largest constituency remains in that field. Organized divorce reform began
in 1906 when Sir Arthur Conan Doyle founded the Divorce Law Reform Union in England.
It is still in existence. In those days, the pendulum was at the other extreme,
women were oppressed, so its intention was to protect them.

In America, organized reform began for men in the 1800s with small groups
scattered about. The National Sociological League was perhaps the earliest
large organization. In 1931 its Executive Director, Dr. Alexander Dallek,
claimed 25,000 members, from every state in the union. They attacked
shotgun marriages and unreasonable child support (which in those days
actually was child support, not disguised alimony). In 1932 an organization
called The Family Protection League lobbied state legislatures. No details
of its demise are recorded.

In 1960 Reuben Kidd and George Partis formed “Divorce Racket Busters” in
Sacramento, California. After coming to national prominence in 1961, the
name changed to United States Divorce Reform Inc. (U.S.D.R.). Its Board of
Directors was Reuben Kidd, George Partis, Jay Burchett, Dr. Winterfield,
and John Cooper. By 1963 USDR's active membership roster had grown to 2,000
members.

USDR's prime focus was modernization of California state divorce laws by
replacing divorce courts with “Family Arbitration Centers.” The effort was
entitled the "Sitton-Winterfield Initiative." It never obtained the
necessary signatures to qualify on the ballot for the November 1966
elections.

Following is the recollection in August 2002 by one of the founders of
USDR, Jay Burchett: “We got together in the year of 1960 and part of our
strategy was to confront the courts and we believed the best way was to run
for the state legislature. Eight of us ran in 1962 and again in 1964.
There were two lawyers, one MD, one DDS, four teachers. I went on
sabbatical leave on a journey around the world, mostly for engineering info.
But I found that most of the world was open for law reform where lawyers
could be throttled. I was welcomed in almost all of the countries and the
European press gave a lot of space to my efforts. I tape-interviewed the
heads of state and used much of the info in the 1964 campaign. Finally we
caught the attention of Assemblyman Pearce Young who also believed we should
not allow lawyers to destroy our families with the adversary proceedings.
Finally after demonstrating in front of court houses all over the states,
Young got his bill to stop the lawyers from taking all of the assets from
both parents, split the property down the middle and let the parents people
have the rest. He got it before the Assembly and in Jan 1970 it was passed.
This caught on in 49 states and stopped the rate increase at about back to
45% but reduced murder-suicide considerably.”

Although the concentration on California's laws may have been practical, a
“shake-down cruise” to prepare for taking on all states’ laws,
non-Californians became restless, and began falling away. Parochial
interests developed. Themselves seemingly afflicted with the divorce
syndrome, various factions began feuding and broke off to form their own
splinter groups. Separate organizations sprung up everywhere. There are
now several hundred, with varying degrees of legitimacy. Most are mere
mutual commiseration societies, without strong leadership.

In 1970, in an effort to unify these discordant elements and groups, your
author formed CADRE (Coalition of American Divorce Reform Elements).
Beginning February 13, 1971, three incorporation conventions were held in
the Elgin, Illinois area, attended by heads of most divorce reform
organizations in the country. Unfortunately it did not fly.

To interest potential supporters including philanthropic sources, it is
necessary to demonstrate a viable, businesslike organization, together with
a financial projection. A claque of compulsive reactionaries raised
rancorous argument. Unable to visualize beyond the nickel and dime stage,
dissenters opposed every expense from purchase of a typewriter to a salary
for the Executive Director, apparently expecting to attract a man capable of
taking on the Supreme Court itself with less pay than a janitor in that
building. Objectors assumed the divorce racket and institutionalized
prejudice could be defeated by part-time amateurs. Unable to grasp the
difference between a projection and a financial statement, they insisted on
having the money in hand before making plans for dispersal. This objection
to planning, of course, prevented obtaining funds. The divisive elements
immobilized the project, and it disintegrated into a Tower of Babel.

Some of the more cooperative leaders tried again in early 1977. That effort
was called Men's Equality Now (M.E.N.) International. Unfortunately, the
same type opposition arose, and again prevented progress. A veritable
alphabet soup of rival and subsequent “coalitions” formed and largely
died out. The latest, most credible attempt, still in its infancy, is
Men/Fathers/Children
International (MFCI).

Opponents of MEN International formed a rival coalition, the National
Congress for Men (NCM. Now NCMC). Predictably, new coalitions have
developed to rival it. The Children's Rights Council, based in Washington,
DC, the American Father's Rights Council, an unincorporated association that
met biannually in Las Vegas between 1992 and 1994, the Coalition of Free Men
in New York, the Men's Health Network in Washington DC, and the short-lived
Men's Education Network International are or were the major attempts at
reorganization.

“A little learning is a dangerous thing.” With the advent of the
Internet, it seems every guy who just discovered the injustice of divorce is
broadcasting his limited knowledge of the issues and his often naïve notions
of reform around the world via chat groups.